Category Archives: imago dei

Theophilus of Antioch, on the Creation Accounts

14 Friday Jul 2017

Posted by in Ante-Nicene, Anthropology, Creation, Creation, Image of God, imago dei, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Theophilus next commences with a  long discussion of the Creation. It is interesting that he takes Creation as the great distinction between the pagan and Christian worldviews. Interestingly, Peter Jones makes exactly the same distinction as the “bedrock” for the difference between Christianity and other positions:

In either case, here we reach rock bottom. Either the transcendent Creator— one God in the unending interpersonal life and love of the Trinity— is at the origin of everything created and sustains it all, or the universe itself, in all its seeming variety, is all there is. And in either case, whether we worship nature or the Maker of nature, we are dealing with a statement of faith and an expression of worship. We cannot step out of the universe to find an objective point of view. We must make a faith decision between these two alternatives— and there are only two. If God and nature make up reality, then all is two, and everything is either Creator or creature. On the other hand, if the universe is all there is, then all is one.

This choice is exemplified in the stark separation between two points of perspective: that of the Bible, and that of Camille Paglia, a contemporary philosopher. The Bible begins by saying: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth [i.e., nature]” (Gen 1: 1). Paglia begins her book Sexual Personae very differently: “In the beginning was Nature.” [footnote] These two views of reality have always existed, but because we have lived for centuries in a Christian environment, the reemerging conflict startles us. Paglia wrote what she did in conscious opposition to the perspective on the world put forth in Genesis. Christian thinking starts not with Paglia’s view of existence but with that of the Bible.

Robert Sokolowski, a professor of philosophy at the Catholic University of America, puts it this way:

Christian theology is differentiated from pagan religious and philosophical reflections primarily by the introduction of a new distinction, the distinction between the world, understood as possibly not having existed, and God, understood as possibly being all that there is, with no diminution of goodness or greatness.

Jones, Peter (2015-06-24). The Other Worldview: Exposing Christianity’s Greatest Threat (Kindle Locations 252-267). Kirkdale Press. Kindle Edition.

In making this argument, Theophilus relies heavily upon the text of Scripture, quoting out long sections of Genesis as argument. A few observations about Theophilus’ rendition of the creation account. First, he gives the rationale for the creation of human beings:

And first, they taught us with one consent that God made all things out of nothing; for nothing was coeval with God: but He being His own place, and wanting nothing, and existing before the ages, willed to make man by whom He might be known; for him, therefore, He prepared the world. For he that is created is also needy; but he that is uncreated stands in need of nothing.

Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 97–98.

Second, he does engage in some allegorizing of the text. This is not in contrast to the “literal” meaning, which he takes as a given, but as an additional layer of meaning. For example:

And we say that the world resembles the sea. For as the sea, if it had not had the influx and supply of the rivers and fountains to nourish it, would long since have been parched by reason of its saltness; so also the world, if it had not had the law of God and the prophets flowing and welling up sweetness, and compassion, and righteousness, and the doctrine of the holy commandments of God, would long ere now have come to ruin, by reason of the wickedness and sin which abound in it. And as in the sea there are islands, some of them habitable, and well-watered, and fruitful, with havens and harbours in which the storm-tossed may find refuge,—so God has given to the world which is driven and tempest-tossed by sins, assemblies6—we mean holy churches7—in which survive the doctrines of the truth, as in the island-harbours of good anchorage; and into these run those who desire to be saved, being lovers of the truth, and wishing to escape the wrath and judgment of God. And as, again, there are other islands, rocky and without water, and barren, and infested by wild beasts, and uninhabitable, and serving only to injure navigators and the storm-tossed, on which ships are wrecked, and those driven among them perish,—so there are doctrines of error—I mean heresies8word of truth; but as pirates, when they have filled their vessels,9 drive them on the fore-mentioned places, that they may spoil them: so also it happens in the case of those who err from the truth, that they are all totally ruined by their error.

Theophilus of Antioch,  100. He also sees the period of testing in Paradise as analogous to a Father raising a child:

The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, but the disobedience, which had death in it. For there was nothing else in the fruit than only knowledge; but knowledge is good when one uses it discreetly. But Adam, being yet an infant in age, was on this account as yet unable to receive knowledge worthily. For now, also, when a child is born it is not at once able to eat bread, but is nourished first with milk, and then, with the increment of years, it advances to solid food. Thus, too, would it have been with Adam; for not as one who grudged him, as some suppose, did God command him not to eat of knowledge. But He wished also to make proof of him, whether he was submissive to His commandment. And at the same time He wished man, infant as he was,4 to remain for some time longer simple and sincere. For this is holy, not only with God, but also with men, that in simplicity and guilelessness subjection be yielded to parents. But if it is right that children be subject to parents, how much more to the God and Father of all things? Besides, it is unseemly that children in infancy be wise beyond their years; for as in stature one increases in an orderly progress, so also in wisdom. But as when a law has commanded abstinence from anything, and some one has not obeyed, it is obviously not the law which causes punishment, but the disobedience and transgression;—for a father sometimes enjoins on his own child abstinence from certain things, and when he does not obey the paternal order, he is flogged and punished on account of the disobedience; and in this case the actions themselves are not the [cause of] stripes, but the disobedience procures punishment for him who disobeys;—so also for the first man, disobedience procured his expulsion from Paradise. Not, therefore, as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from his disobedience did man draw, as from a fountain, labour, pain, grief, and at last fall a prey to death.

Theophilus of Antioch,  104. This probationary period could have resulted in immortality from the beginning, had Adam kept the law of God:

But some one will say to us, Was man made by nature mortal? Certainly not. Was he, then, immortal? Neither do we affirm this. But one will say, Was he, then, nothing? Not even this hits the mark. He was by nature neither mortal nor immortal. For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God; but if, on the other hand, he should turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he should himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power over himself.1 That, then, which man brought upon himself through carelessness and disobedience, this God now vouchsafes to him as a gift through His own philanthropy and pity, when men obey Him.2 For as man, disobeying, drew death upon himself; so, obeying the will of God, he who desires is able to procure for himself life everlasting. For God has given us a law and holy commandments; and every one who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption.

Theophilus of Antioch, 105.

We become monsters

12 Friday May 2017

Posted by in Image of God, imago dei, Psychology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

One big idea unifies all of Nietzsche’s offspring — the Marxists, the Freudians, the French Existentialists, the critical theorists, the Deconstructionists, the queer theorists — and that is the right to self-invention. That is the cruelest hoax ever perpetrated on human beings, for we are not clever or strong enough to reinvent ourselves. To the extent we succeed, we become monsters.

David P. Goldman on self-invention

More Observations on the Image of God

02 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Image of God, imago dei, Theology of Biblical Counseling, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Revising and developing my notes on the theology of psychology, with particular emphasis on biblical counseling. One important aspect of any psychological system is its anthropology: what is a human being? The answer to that question is a theological question: psychology as a discipline of observation cannot answer that question.

A critical element of biblical anthropology is that human beings are in the image of God. The discussion of this issue is enormous. Here are three voices on the issue. Biblical Doctrine, John MacArthur, explains there are three basic views as to the doctrine of the image of God:

Three views have been offered in answer to the question of how exactly man is in God’s image: substantive, functional, and relational. First, the substantive view says that the image of God is inherently structural to man it is a characteristic within the makeup of man….

 Second, the functional view asserts at the image of God is something that human beings do….

Third, the relational view claims that relationship is the image of God.

The best view however isn’t the image of God is substantive or structural to man. Function and relationship are the consequences of man being the image of God structurally….

The structure probably consist of the complex qualities and attributes of man that making human. This includes his physical and spiritual components. The image could also be linked to personhood and personality and to the powers to relate and operate.

 

MacArthur anr Biblical Doctrine, pp. 412 – 413.

 

  1. John S. Hammett, in the chapter “Human Nature” in A Theology for the Church, avoids the question of structural, functional or relational:

Despite the paucity of biblical teaching on the image of God, we may draw five biblical parameters. these guidelines do not answer all the questions we have concerning the image of God, but they give us guidelines by which we may evaluate suggested interpretations of the image of God.

Creation in the image of God is affirmed for all persons….

Creation in the image of God involves being like God in some unspecified way….

Creation in the image of God is the basis for human uniqueness and dignity (Gen 9:6; Jas 3:9-10)….

Even after the fall, humans are spoken of as being in the image of God, so the image is not completely lost in the fall. However, it does seem that the image was damaged in the fall, for there are verses that speak of the restoration of the divine image or conformity to the image of Christ as an ongoing process in the Christian life (2 Cor 3:18; Eph. 4:23-24; Col 3:10).

Moreover, since Christ is the perfect image of God (Heb 1:3) and the result of this process of restoration is being fully like Christ (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 1 John 3:1-2), we may speak of the image of God as being not only are created design but also our eschatological destiny.

Theology, p. 294.

Bavnick has an extensive discussion of the doctrine, the history of the doctrine and critiques of the various views.  He concludes:

In our treatment of the doctrine of the image of God, then, we must highlight, in accordance with Scripture and the Reformed confession, the idea that a human being does not bear or have the image of God but that he or she is the image of God. As a human being a man is the son, the likeness, or offspring of God (Gen. 1:26; 9:6; Luke 3:38; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 11:7; James 3:9).

Two things are implied in this doctrine. The first is that not something in God—one virtue or perfection or another to the exclusion of still others, nor one person—say, the Son to the exclusion of the Father and the Spirit—but that God himself, the entire deity, is the archetype of man. Granted, it has frequently been taught that man has specifically been made in the image of the Son or of the incarnate Christ,72 but there is nothing in Scripture that supports this notion. Scripture repeatedly tells us that humankind was made in the image of God, not that we have been modeled on Christ, but that he was made [human] in our likeness (Rom. 8:3; Phil. 2:7–8; Heb. 2:14), and that we, having been conformed to the image of Christ, are now again becoming like God (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Phil. 3:21; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; 1 John 3:2). It is therefore much better for us to say that the triune being, God, is the archetype of man,73 while at the same time exercising the greatest caution in the psychological exploration of the trinitarian components of man’s being.74

On the other hand, it follows from the doctrine of human creation in the image of God that this image extends to the whole person. Nothing in a human being is excluded from the image of God. While all creatures display vestiges of God, only a human being is the image of God. And he is such totally, in soul and body, in all his faculties and powers, in all conditions and relations. Man is the image of God because and insofar as he is truly human, and he is truly and essentially human because, and to the extent that, he is the image of God. Naturally, just as the cosmos is an organism and reveals God’s attributes more clearly in some than in other creatures, so also in man as an organism the image of God comes out more clearly in one part than another, more in the soul than in the body, more in the ethical virtues than in the physical powers. None of this, however, detracts in the least from the truth that the whole person is the image of God. Scripture could not and should not speak of God in a human manner and transfer all human attributes to God, as if God had not first made man totally in his own image. And it is the task of Christian theology to point out this image of God in man’s being in its entirety.

Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 554–555.

So the whole human being is image and likeness of God, in soul and body, in all human faculties, powers, and gifts. Nothing in humanity is excluded from God’s image; it stretches as far as our humanity does and constitutes our humanness. The human is not the divine self but is nevertheless a finite creaturely impression of the divine. All that is in God—his spiritual essence, his virtues and perfections, his immanent self-distinctions, his self-communication and self-revelation in creation—finds its admittedly finite and limited analogy and likeness in humanity

Herman Bavinck, John Bolt, and John Vriend, Reformed Dogmatics: God and Creation, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 561.

 

What God says of our Identity 

23 Sunday Apr 2017

Posted by in Biblical Counseling, Image of God, imago dei, Preaching

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

But his theology of the cross involved the recognition that God sometimes works “under the appearance of opposites.” Thus Luther strove to cultivate in the congregation a faith that rested in confidence on God’s presence and promise even when his strength was being perfected in their weakness, as God had told Paul he was doing in the apostle’s life (2 Cor. 12:9). In this sermon on Mark 5 Luther, in both temporal and spiritual dimensions of life, poses the contrast of what human beings see in the world and what Christ sees. David had seen himself as a poor shepherd, and so had the world, but Christ viewed him as a king. “All of you who have faith in me regard yourselves as poor sinners, but I regard you as precious saints; I regard you as like the angels. I simply speak not more than a single word, and sin, death, sickness have to yield, and righteousness, life, and health come in their place. The way I speak determines how things are; they cannot be otherwise.” 

Robert Kolb, Luther and the Stories of God, Chapter 3

More on Denying God’s Existence and Yet Oddly Confirming God’s Law

01 Tuesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Image of God, imago dei, Uncategorized, Van Til

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This quotation from Van Til adds some nuance on the question of whether one must acknowledge God’s existence to be subject to God’s moral law:

After the fall, therefore, all men seek to suppress this truth, fixed in their being about themselves. They are opposed to God. This is the biblical teaching on human depravity. If we are to present the truth of the Christian religion to men we must take them where they are. They are: a) creatures made in God’s image, surrounded by a world that reveals in its every fact God’s power and divinity. Their antithesis to God can never be metaphysical. They can never be anything but image bearers of God. They can never escape facing God in the universe about them in their own constitution. Their antithesis to God is therefore an ethical one; b) because of God’s common grace, this ethical antithesis to God on the part of the sinner is restrained, and thereby the creative forces of man receive the opportunity of constructive effort. In this world the sinner does many ‘good’ things. He is honest. He helps to alleviate the sufferings of his fellow men. He ‘keeps’ the moral law. Therefore the ‘antithesis’ besides being ethical rather than metaphysical, is limited in a second way. It is one of principle, not one of full expression. If the natural man fully expressed himself as he is in terms of the principle of ethical hostility to God that dwells in his soul, he would be a veritable devil. Obviously he is nothing of the sort. He is not at all as ‘bad as he may be.’

Strange, Daniel; Strange, Daniel (2015-02-03). Their Rock Is Not Like Our Rock: A Theology of Religions (p. 92). Zondervan. Kindle Edition. Quoting: Van Til, Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 45. (By the way, I am finding Dr. Daniel Strange’s book quite useful.

What is man that you ….

12 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in Christology, Hebrews, Image of God, imago dei, Job, Justification, Psalms, Romans, Soteriology, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Job 7 and Psalm 8 present a paradoxical contrast in the meaning of man before God: Why does God care for man.  Job asks why God cares so deeply as to even be concerned with men’s sin:

17 What is man, that you make so much of him, and that you set your heart on him,
18 visit him every morning and test him every moment?
19 How long will you not look away from me, nor leave me alone till I swallow my spit?
20 If I sin, what do I do to you, you watcher of mankind? Why have you made me your mark? Why have I become a burden to you?
21 Why do you not pardon my transgression and take away my iniquity? For now I shall lie in the earth; you will seek me, but I shall not be.

Job 7:17-21

This sort of question, in the minds of some, has led to a religious impulse which creates a god who simply forgives because this god is merciful — God may be concerned about extremely wicked men (typically this requires genocide or at least extreme viciousness), but God does not care about my “small” sins.

And while this sort of religion appears to be very comforting it comes it at a very high cost. First, it comes at the cost of God: God must give up justice to simply overlook sin without redress: Imagine a judge hearing the case of someone who without question committed a gross injustice against you. The criminal is guilty, you sense your need for justice and the judge simply shows “mercy” and less the bad-guy go. Your anger would rightly rise against this situation, because “mercy” comes at the cost of justice.

What sort of a god could sacrifice justice and still be a just God?

Second, as Job notes, to simply overlook sin without more, comes at the expense of humanity. Job asks, why concern yourself with my sin? I’m not that important.

And so you see, that a merely “merciful” god regards a degradation of God and of humanity. God must be unjust and we must be without value to pull off such a “forgiveness”. It is not surprising then that our civic religion of an avuncular god who simply forgives comes at the cost of human dignity.

Scripture however presents a perfectly holy God. It also places human beings as alone bearing the image of God. For humans to be of such worth requires that God have concern for our sin: because human beings are representing God (whether good or ill).

A high view of God and leads to a high view of the value of human beings — at the very same moment, producing the humility of wonder and love:

4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him? 5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

Psalm 8:4-5  This resolution of the conflict takes place in Jesus Christ. The writer of Hebrews specifically brings these strands together, God, man, sin as follows;

6 It has been testified somewhere, “What is man, that you are mindful of him, or the son of man, that you care for him?
7 You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor,
8 putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

Hebrews 2:6-9. There in the place of Jesus, God greatness and justice gather up the sinfulness of humanity and restore human beings to a place of honor.

This is how Paul makes the same argument, from a slightly different vantage:

 

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3:21–26.

Book Review: Identity and Idolatry The image of God and its inversion

13 Wednesday Apr 2016

Posted by in Book Review, Culture, Idolatry, imago dei, Thesis, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Identity and Idolatry
The image of God and its inversion
Richard Lints
172 page IVP, 2015

In the first chapter, Lints makes clear that this discussion about the imago Dei will not concern “human nature”, but rather is an “account about how life is lived as reflections of God and as reflected in our communal contexts” (24). “The imago Dei captures this transitory reality – as an image is contingent upon the object for its identity, so the imago Dei is contingent upon God for its identity” (29).

In this respect, Lints’ thesis matches closely with the aphorism of Beale’s title, “We Become What We Worship.”

Chapter 2, “A Strange Bridge” works out the concept of “image” in some detail. The last paragraph of the chapter has this wonderful sentence, “Image bearers are not intrinsically idolatrous though they are doxologically fragile” (42).

The next two chapters begin to work the biblical text in greater detail as it concerns “image.” Being made as the image of God, we are hardwired, if you will to reflect: “Humans are made in such a way as to yearn for something beyond themselves that grants them significance, most notably the God who made them as his image” (62).

This thread will be developed in the second half of the book, when Lints turns to the question of
idolatry.

There is profound irony in idolatry. Human beings will become conformed to what we worship — we are built to worship and reflect (which are aspects of the same process). Now an idol is an image created by human desire coupled with the promise of fulfillment:

It was because the fragility of the human heart disposed it to yearn for security on its own terms. This disposition was made all the more dangerous when it was underwritten with the power to create gods in their own imagination. This points at the reality that idolatry was not in the first instance a cognitive error (believing in other gods) but a fallacy of the heart (yearning for control) (86).

It is a god who can be controlled and made fulfill and meet the human desire: and yet, that desire cannot be met by the idol, because the cannot do anything. And since those who make idols “become like them” (Ps. 115:8; interesting that Lints does not interact with this verse and only once makes mention of the Psalm; however, the concept is everywhere present in his discussion of idolatry), the idol worshipper becomes captivated by and transformed in unfulfilled desire:

Paul is insistent that idols will not deliver on their promises. Instead they create consuming passions in which there is deliverance. This inverted state is surprising from one angle-how foolish humans are to suppose they can have a god on their own terms. And yet the inversion produces an entirely predictable consequence — abandoning God results in an identity crisis wherein one’s safety and significance become endlessly fragile (111).
Chapter 7, “The rise of suspicion: the religious criticism of religion” is a brilliant summation of 19th philosophy its critique of Christianity — a critique which still plays in the broader culture. I am honestly amazed at Lints ability to aptly and fairly summarize Kant, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Freud and Nietzsche in such a small space.I have lectured on these most of these men and know who hard they are to summarize in any cogent and fair manner.

The final chapter is good solid advice for Christians.

There are enormous gaps in my discussion of this book — because I want you to buy it and use it.

Logic as a Person

11 Wednesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Christology, Image of God, imago dei, Thinking, Trinity, Vern Poythress, Wisdom

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Dr. Poythress in his recent book Logic contends that logic’s existence reveals God and exists because of God. He first ties together two proposition: (1) God is Lord over all (Psalm 103:19); and (2) “[L]ogic is not created. Philosophers have maintained that it ‘just is'” (63). If we try to place God over logic, then logic somehow is a/the Lord of God.

Poythress notes three aspects of the character of God. “First, God is dependable and faithful in his character” (63). Thus God by nature holds a logical consistency with whom he is. He is a God who “cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13). Second, God alone is the Creator — nothing stands above him and nothing stands independently of him. Therefore, his consistency and attributes must be part of who he is: the logical coherence of his being provides the substance of logic. Third, human beings are made in the image of God and think God’s thoughts after God. He quotes Van Til, to the effect that we “think God’s thoughts after Him analogically” (64).

Our logic reflects God’s logic. Logic, then, is an aspect of God’s mind. Logic is universal among all human beings in all cultures, because there is one God, and we are all made in the image of God….Whenever we reason, we are imitating God whether we recognize it or not. The only alternative is insanity, which means the disintegration of the image God in us. 64.

Thus, human logical enterprises an attempt to describe this aspect of God’s character.

Poythress goes on to contend that logic is a personal, not an impersonal, attirbute. He notes that logic is an aspect of human thought — it is not the activity of rocks or trees. Moreover, logic is embedded within language and moves through language. The Bible further teaches that creation itself is the result of rational speech, that is, logical enterprise.

He then notes the manner in which the Bible makes plain this rational speech of God is the Word of God, the Logos:

Logic, we said, is personal. Now it becomes more evident why it is personal. It not only personal, but a person, namely, the Word of God. But we should be careful to underline the the fact that this person, the second person of the Trinity, is much richer than our human conceptions, either of logic or of reason or of language as a whole. He is infinite, an infinite person, with all the richness of God himself: “for in him [Christ] the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” (Col. 2:9). Thus logic in a narrow sense is only one aspect of who God is. (71).

20131210-222949.jpg

“Image of God” as used in the ANE

12 Monday Aug 2013

Posted by in Genesis, Hebrew, imago dei, OT Background

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In Kingdom Through C ovenant (Peter J. Gentry & Stephen J. Wellum), G &W analyze the “image of God” referenced in Genesis 1:26-27 by reference to the Ancient Near East conventions and usage. The key clause is:

Let us make adam [man, human beings]

In our image

According to our likeness

Genesis 1:26.

In our image:

ANE background G & W rely upon the work of Paul Dion “Ressemblance et Image de Dieu” for the pre-Mosaic Egyptian usage of the concept “image of god”. From (at least?) 1630 B.C. onward, the phrase “image of god” was used to convey the notion that the Pharaoh was a son of a god and conveys or reflects “the essential notions of the god” (Kingdom, 191). Moreover, since the Pharaoh conveyed the essential aspects of the god as a son of the god, the Pharaoh also held the status as ruler over the world: “To sum up, the term ‘image of god’ in the culture and language of the ancient Near East in the fifteenth century B.C. would have communicated two main ideas: (1) rulership and (2) sonship. The king is the image of god because he as a relationship to the deity as the son of god and a relationship to the word as a ruler for the god” (Kingdom, 192).

The proposition is supported by references to various inscriptions. For example, An inscription from the time of Esarhaddon, 681-668 B.C. (LAS 125, in PSimo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, Part I: Texts): reads:

What the king, [my lord] wrote to me: “I heard from the mouth of my father that you are a royal family, but now I know it from my own experience,” the father of the king, my lord, was the very image of the god Bel, and the king, my lord is likewise the very image of Bel (quoted in Kingdom, 193).

That is, the king was the image of the god Bel, who thus conveys the authority and majesty of the god.

Doing a quick search, I noted the following additional references to “image”[1] which support the concept. First, from the Stela of Amenhotep III:

Amun’s blessing to the King

Speech of Amun, King of Gods:

My son, of my body, my beloved Nebmare,

My living image, my body’s creation,

Born me by Mut, Ashru’s Lady in Thebes,

Mistress of the Nine Bows,

Who nursed you to be sole lord of peoples!

My heart is very joyful when I see your beauty,

I did a wonder for your majesty,

You repeat your youth,

For I made you the Sun of the Two Shores.

Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–), 46.

From “Hymn to Aten and the King”:

You love him [the King], you make him like Aten.

You dawn to give him eternity,

When you set you give him infinity.

You create him daily like your forms,

You build him in your image like Aten.

Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume II: The New Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–), 93.

When my brother sent Mane, his messenger, saying, “Send your daughter here to be my wife and the mistress of Egypt”, I caused my brother no distress and immediately6 I said, “Of course!” The one whom my brother requested I showed to Mane, and he saw her. When he saw her, he praised her greatly. I will l[ea]d her7 in safety to my brother’s country. May Šauška and Aman make her the image of my brother’s desire.

William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters, English-language ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

From the Victory Stela of King Piye:

“Hear what I did, exceeding the ancestors,

I the King, image of god,

Living likeness of Atum!

Who left the womb marked as ruler,

Feared by those greater than he!

His father knew, his mother perceived:

He would be ruler from the egg,

The Good God, beloved of gods,

The Son of Re, who acts with his arms,

Piye beloved-of-Amun.

Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature: Volume III: The Late Period (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973–), 68.

In our image:

Next relying on the research of Ernst Jenni, Die hebraishen Prapositionen, Band 1, 1992, they state that the preposition beth (b), English “in” marks an “equating status”. “Thus, again, be indicates something locative and proximate” (Kingdom, 199). Thus, humans are closest to God in the matter of “image”. When the creation looks upon Adam, they will see the “image” of God: the one conveying God’s rule in creation.

According to our Likeness:

G & W, relying (in part) upon the Tell Fakhariyeh Inscription, explain that , “‘image’ refers to the king’s majestic power and rule in relation to his subject while ‘likeness’ refers to the king’s petitionary role and relation to the deity” (Kingdom, 302). (A discussion of the inscription can be found here: http://www.wtctheology.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Garr%20Image.pdf)
In the article cited by G & W, Garr makes this observation: Fakhariyeh uses the Aramaic “image” to refer to himself in respect to the god and “likeness” to refer to himself in respect to the subject:

In the first section [which uses the word ‘likeness’ to describe his relationship to the deity], the ruler is a supplicant. He deflects attention from himself, placing himself in a position subordinate to his divine addressee and requesting that his prayer be answered. In the second section [which uses the word “image” to refer to his relationship to the deity], the governor is center-stage. He beings by addressing his own needs for recognition, sovereignty and respect. Later, he becomes focused on power, and his use of power to direct events. Whereas the first part of the inscription depicts Had-yit‘I as a supplicant, the second depicts him as sovereign. (Israel Exploration Journal 50/3-4 (2003), W. Randal Garr, “’Image’ and ‘Likeness’ in the Inscription from Tell Fakhariyeh”, 231).

And:

In other words, the two representational terms reflect and implicate complementary function of the object/or ruler himself. “Likeness” [ atwmd] is petitionary and directed at the deity; it is cultic and votive. ‘Image’ [mlx ] is majestic, absolute and commemorative ; it is directed at the people. Thus, these two Aramaic terms encode two traditional roles of the Mesopotamian ruler – that of devout worshipper and that of sovereign monarch (231-232).

When this is coupled to analysis of the preposition ke, according to (again, relying upon the work of Jenni) they state, “ke indicates something similar but distal and separate” (Kingdom, 199).

Implications:

Hans Walter Wolff, in Anthropology of the Old Testament, wrote:

Accordingly, man is set in the midst of creation as God’s statue. He is evidence that God is the Lord of creation; but as God’s steward he also exerts his rule, fulfilling his task not in arbitrary despotism but as a responsible agent. His rule and his duty are not autonomous; they are copies. (quoted in Kingdom, 200).

G & W thus argue that “image of God” refers first to covenant relationship which human beings are to hold toward. It references the relationship one has toward God; and the relationship which one holds to the creation, both the human beings and the non-human creation.

This does not mean that human beings did not suffer significantly at the Fall.

21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Romans 1:21–23 (ESV)

However, that loss is not distinctly related to the matter of the “image” of God. It also helps explain a passage such as Colossians 3:10:

10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Colossians 3:10 (ESV)

[1] I am unable to confirm the Egyptian word underlying the English translation; hence, these references are unconfirmed examples.